Nidge wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Nidge wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I think a lot of problem understanding all of this is that we are dealing with a double negative.
Instead of saying we are exempt from the act which exempts, it would be better if the act says simply that anything we ever do illegally can aways be taken into account.
So how do we go on if we have a string on driving convictions like
3 IN10's disq 18 months
1 DR10 disq 18 months
1 DR10 disq Sentenced 18 months
I bet you'd still give him a badge wouldn't you?
supposing those convictions were at age 18.
does that mean at age 58 he still does not qualify
a licensing officer has to be reasonable something you are not!
6 years ago Geoff, where do you get aged 58 from, he was born in 72 makes him a funny 58.
nIGE INSTEAD OF DRIB DRAB OF INFORMATION.
why dont you give the facts?
its all very well you are talking of an individual case and I am talking principle, something you and the bully from gateshead cannot comprehend.
no we wouldnt give this guy a badge merely because we would never be in a position to do something I have said b4
and this case realy should not be splattered on the internet.
does this guy know that someone he trusted to photocopy his papers stole them and leaked them to you?
there is more than him in Mansfield thats not fit and proper?
why Nige are you picking on him? how old is he exactly and how old was he when the sexual offences committed?
it realy is a material consideration?